It is with pleasure that I quote Orson Scott Card today. Since I have reduced my commentary on US Politics I have not had the opportunity to quote Mr. Card as of late. Today he opines about Global Warming and thus he is fair game.
I find his 12 questions to be quite logical.
1. Has global temperature risen?
2. If so, how much?
3. Is this out of line with temperature fluctuations in the past?
4. What have the consequences of global temperature change been so far?
5. What have the consequences of warming or cooling been in the past?
6. How rapid are the changes?
7. To what degree are today's global temperatures the result of human activities?
8. What evidence is there that current changes, if any, are part of a broad trend rather than a temporary fluctuation?
9. If human activity is causing global warming, then what is the cost of stopping those human activities compared to the cost of allowing global warming to continue?
10. When computer models are used to predict future temperature trends, how do we know that all significant variables have been included?
11. How well have these computer models predicted temperature change in the past?
12. How do we know that human activity that causes global warming is not saving us from even worse global temperature change?
Time and again, I've read the little religious testimonies from scientists and writers about science, bearing witness to their personal faith in global warming, without seeing even a hint that they have addressed any of the questions above except in the most superficial way.
Most of them seem to start with the article of faith that any unexplained phenomenon is the result of human actions, and any phenomenon resulting from human actions must be bad, and any price humans must pay to stop doing these bad things is worth it.
It's the New Calvinism: Humans are evil by nature and should be punished, even if the punishment won't solve the problem, and even if the problem is actually better than the "solution."
...The Enviro-Calvinists say, in effect, "The sky is falling, so we must shoot the dog."
I thought it was Eco-Communists but that may be splitting hairs. Do you think you reach the conclusion that CO2 is a toxic gas if you follow the 12 steps above?
